What house system should I be using?

Anachiel

Well-known member
Re: Placidus vs. Whole Sign

The best advice I ever saw about house systems is to pick an astrologer you want to study, and then use the house system that astrologer uses/used.

Thank you. That was my advice in a thread similar to this one quite some ago :) I think it basically ends any argument this hot topic could ignite

Simply put, it depends on the method or "style" of astrology that you use.

If you are Hellenistic or similar, whole signs will be of use. Otherwise, Placidus or many of the myriad other houses systems do fine. If you follow Morinus method, then use his house system and dignities, etc. If you are Uranian, they have their preferred house system for their system. You get the picture.

With all good intent, I think the above also should solve any dilemma one finds themselves in regarding house systems.
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

I would agree with this part of your post

I differ on this point because in order to calculate whole sign house system one MUST input exact time, latitude - as well as day/date


Well, no! You can be quite vague about the exact time of birth! And though you do imput latitude and longitude, this isn't really considered except for the Ascendant-Descendant and MC-IC axis placed in the zodiac chart. Consider that millions of people all over the world will be born with exactly the same houses i.e. zodiac signs arranged around their chart, even though the Ascendant-Descendant and MC-IC might be in different places - how on earth can this describe an individual?

fwiw, whole signs most definitely DOES NOT 'fit millions of people born within an approximately two hour span all over the world'!

Of course it does! How could it be otherwise? Think of the many, many babies born into the world over a two hour span! - as I said, millions!

Whole sign house system is far more involved than Sun Sign astrology and fwiw IMO it is misleading to equate the two.

It is just one step above Sun sign astrology - I suppose it is Ascendant sign astrology as everything is equated back to the Ascendant sign; very, very simple stuff.

House sytems do tell the story accurately and since whole signs is an accurate house system that requires an exact time and latitude for its calculation then whole signs DOES tell the story accurately because whole signs displays MC/IC/ASC/DESC

Again - no it doesn't tell the story accurately - at least with houses as they aren't houses, they are just the signs of the zodiac arranged around the chart from 0 degrees of the sign Ascending. The only reason you calculate the time and latitude is to find the Ascending sign and really you don't have to be all that accurate with the time either.

When I think of preciseness of modern astrology and particularly harmonic astrology, this makes me very sad. Do you know that if you have the correct time of birth and house system, the house cusps will respond to events right on time - with transits, progressions, directions and age harmonics. To disregard a whole, accurate system of modern astrology and go back to a very simple form of arranging houses through zodiac signs just because the ancients used this system, in my mind is absolutely ridiculous.

Alice
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Re: Placidus vs. Whole Sign

Whole signs IS in fact a house system! - here's a useful read that explains the subject http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html

This article is not very good! Consider this extract

The Ascendant and Midheaven, in effect, become PLANETS, which is what they truly are,

First of all, it is the Ascendant-Descendant and MC-IC axis, not just one side of the axis; secondly saying these points are planets shows a considerable lack of knowledge of both astrology and astronomy. Like all house cusps these are energy points derived from the time and place of birth on Earth that are deeply relevant to the individual, they are not the other planets in our solar system.

Alice
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

" It's the entire reason for the existence of the zodiac.

The zodiac is derived from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun -as I have explained in my article on Southern Hemisphere astrology here: http://aliceportman.com/what-is-the-difference-between-northern-and-southern-hemisphere-astrology/

The houses are derived from the time and place of an event on Earth itself.

Alice

As to the statement that it is very generalized and not individual, this negates the purpose of the ASC degree, the IC/MC axis, the location of the lots and their degrees, the value of the 12th parts...there is a rich history of individualization to be found and used with whole signs. Angularity is still of paramount importance. The houses as the signs themselves give a very good, detailed understanding of the thematic nature of the natal chart, and show where the planetary energy will manifest.

I am quite a fan of the Lots and use them a great deal in my own astrology, so they are not just relevant to zodiac sign houses. Naturally zodiac sign houses will work to some degree because zodiac signs are a powerful factor in our use of astrology and the sign rising at the time of birth is always important, but to ignore the value and accuracy of the division of time and space at a specific location to determine house cusps seems to me to be ignoring a most effective and very accurate form of astrology as these map the individual nature of a person.

Alice
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: Placidus vs. Whole Sign

Thank you. That was my advice in a thread similar to this one quite some ago :) I think it basically ends any argument this hot topic could ignite



With all good intent, I think the above also should solve any dilemma one finds themselves in regarding house systems.

Anachiel, I thought it might have been you who gave that advice, but couldn't remember and didn't want to be wrong. Still the best advice I ever read. :joyful:

Any dilemma regarding house systems can be initially solved that way, until the fledgling astrologer has studied enough masters, and enough house systems, and looked at enough charts to know what works for him/her and what doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to understand how they all work, especially when discussing astrology with, you know, other astrologers who might be using something else. At least if you want the discussion to actually be productive, and not just how you can recite this fact or that to prove a point that, in the end, only really matters to you...

To say that one is better than the other, to say that my house system can beat up your house system, to do the same about the (shhhh, I know) zodiac question is to demean the contributions of other astrologers, and in fact is a really great way to shut down productive learning and discussion. In my own opinion, of course. :innocent:
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

Thanks for bringing up the original meaning of "cusps" and digging up info about the origins of whole signs system. It's not just for "beginners" but it's a bonafide system.

I was taught to read whole signs by the 2 different astrologers who pushed me to further study astrology. My Dad taught me to read whole signs when I was under 10 years old and he was in his 30s dabbling in astrological charts and fixed stars.

Hi may28gemini

I am glad you have been studying astrology since you were 10, it gives you a very good grounding in our craft.

From what I have read you have only used whole sign astrology and have only had teachers that use this system? Perhaps at some stage it would be worthwhile for you to really study proper house systems and see how accurate the correct system can be.

I've tried to read Placidus but it never made any sense to me. Every sign has 30 degrees so it makes sense that there's 1 sign for for 1 house. I find it sounds wacky that there could be 2 or 3 different signs in 1 house and couldn't really get into it. :ninja:

Most students of astrology have difficulty reading a chart in any other way that the way they were originally taught; it takes quite a few years of deeper study in this area to be comfortable with other systems, should you wish to consider other systems.

One sign for one house is elegant, but long experience shows me that elegance isn't always accuracy. Houses aren't signs, the signs of the Zodiac are derived from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, houses are derived from a specific place on Earth.

Alice
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Placidus vs. Whole Sign

Anachiel, I thought it might have been you who gave that advice, but couldn't remember and didn't want to be wrong. Still the best advice I ever read. :joyful:

Any dilemma regarding house systems can be initially solved that way, until the fledgling astrologer has studied enough masters, and enough house systems, and looked at enough charts to know what works for him/her and what doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to understand how they all work, especially when discussing astrology with, you know, other astrologers who might be using something else. At least if you want the discussion to actually be productive, and not just how you can recite this fact or that to prove a point that, in the end, only really matters to you...


To say that one is better than the other, to say that my house system can beat up your house system, to do the same about the (shhhh, I know) zodiac question is to demean the contributions of other astrologers, and in fact is a really great way to shut down productive learning and discussion. In my own opinion, of course. :innocent:
Exactly tsmall! Well said! :smile:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

The zodiac is derived from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun -as I have explained in my article on Southern Hemisphere astrology here: http://aliceportman.com/what-is-the-difference-between-northern-and-southern-hemisphere-astrology/

The houses are derived from the time and place of an event on Earth itself.

Alice

Hi Alice (waves) good to see you again. :smile:

That the zodiac itself, and the signs therin, is derived from the orbit of the earth around the Sun is one, and only one, theory of the zodiac. If what you said were universally true, Chinese, Vedic, Druid and other astrology would all use the same zodiac. And they don't. To say that the tropical zodiac is so contrived? That would be more accurate, don't you think? Let's keep in mind that the signs get their names from the constellations, and not the other way around. Also, to my understanding, the divisions of the ecliptic are in fact divisions of the apparent path of the Sun around the Earth, and not the other way 'round? Again keeping in mind that it is our perspective (and not, contrary to what some believe, that the ancients didn't know that the earth revolved around the Sun, since it has become more and more evident that they did) from our location on Earth that defines the zodiac.



I am quite a fan of the Lots and use them a great deal in my own astrology, so they are not just relevant to zodiac sign houses. Naturally zodiac sign houses will work to some degree because zodiac signs are a powerful factor in our use of astrology and the sign rising at the time of birth is always important, but to ignore the value and accuracy of the division of time and space at a specific location to determine house cusps seems to me to be ignoring a most effective and very accurate form of astrology as these map the individual nature of a person.

Alice

I don't dispute that the cusps of houses are important, and I also don't dispute your use of what ever quadrant based system works for you. But, to say that whole signs don't use house cusps is inaccurate and can be misleading. Because it does. A lot (forgive the pun.)

Perhaps at some stage it would be worthwhile for you to really study proper house systems and see how accurate the correct system can be.

This is the kind of dismissive argument that negates serious discussion. That you have studied, taught, and practiced astrology for over 40 years isn't the issue. To discourage further exploration, and dismiss out of hand a house system that was in fact employed for over 1000 years for natal astrology as being "improper" and "incorrect" is part of what makes serious discussion about the merits of any house system difficult.
 

Moog

Well-known member
These threads are always lame. Why not show, don't tell. Let's see the correct system in action. I find results convincing, talk doesn't move me.
 

Moog

Well-known member
Anyone that can delineate a chart more convincingly than I can for myself, I'll want to study what they do.

Otherwise, I'm sticking with the good stuff.
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

Hi Alice (waves) good to see you again. :smile:

To say that the tropical zodiac is so contrived? That would be more accurate, don't you think? Let's keep in mind that the signs get their names from the constellations, and not the other way around.

Well, here we get to an area that I am currently thinking about. I have several questions about this premise, a couple are:

1. Why do astrologers use the constellations in even, 30 degree segments when they are anything but that.

2. The constellations aren't 'real' - they are an arrangement of stars accepted by western cultures but this arrangement isn't used in many other cultures. For example, the Chinese have quite diffferent arrangements of the same stars.

I am wondering if in actual fact the constellations were named after the signs of the zodiac not the other way around. The signs of the zodiac are even, 30 degree segments derived from the Earth's movement around the Sun and starting when the Sun is at 0North00 declination on the equator,which is 0 Aries. Perhaps at a time when the western constellation of Aries was aligned to 0North00 declination this mixup occurred.

Also, to my understanding, the divisions of the ecliptic are in fact divisions of the apparent path of the Sun around the Earth, and not the other way 'round? Again keeping in mind that it is our perspective (and not, contrary to what some believe, that the ancients didn't know that the earth revolved around the Sun, since it has become more and more evident that they did) from our location on Earth that defines the zodiac.

Well, its the same thing! The Earth orbits the Sun, the great center of our Solar system. As we are part of the Earth, from our perspective we see the Sun orbiting around the Earth. The ecliptic is the orbit of the Earth around the Sun from the viewpoint of Earth. As I have explained in my article, this orbit determines the signs of the zodiac: 0 Aries starts at 0N00 declination, 0 Taurus starts at 11N29 declination ... and so on.

I think the orbit of the Earth around the Sun energises the Earth's energy field - which are the signs of the zodiac.

I don't dispute that the cusps of houses are important, and I also don't dispute your use of what ever quadrant based system works for you. But, to say that whole signs don't use house cusps is inaccurate and can be misleading. Because it does. A lot (forgive the pun.)

I wasn't aware that whole sign astrology used house cusps? what do they do, put the house cusps in the sign and call it an energy point but not the start of the house? If so, this is a new development since I studied the system.

What then of the noticeable correlation of a planet in a house to the equivalent sign of the zodiac - this correlation is so exact that people can have a planet in a house at exactly the same House Equivalent Degree as a member of the family or a partner's planet in zodiac sign. I have detailed this at the bottom of this article using the Royal family as an example: http://aliceportman.com/planet-sign-house/ If you don't use a quadrant house system how can you see this?

This is the kind of dismissive argument that negates serious discussion. That you have studied, taught, and practiced astrology for over 40 years isn't the issue. To discourage further exploration, and dismiss out of hand a house system that was in fact employed for over 1000 years for natal astrology as being "improper" and "incorrect" is part of what makes serious discussion about the merits of any house system difficult.

Deleted by Moderator

Far from wishing to discourage further exploration, I have been a proponent of this all my astrological life, and was one of the original contributors to Project Hindsight via the astrological group to which I belonged. In my fascination with our craft I have studied a huge variety of astrology, including Vedic and Chinese astrology as well as the various forms of western astrology and have personally (re) discovered the duad chart as well as a number of other interesting factors.

What I object to is the continous denigration of modern astrology, often from people who have little or no idea of its scope and depth. Whole sign (or zodiac sign) astrology is a specific system of astrology that many people like and is fashionable at the moment, but it doesn't encompass many of the methods of mapping that modern astrology offers and which give a very individual colour to that moment of time and place. To me it is a very simple form of astrology based on the zodiac sign rising at birth - and surely I am allowed to express my opinion on this matter, after all other people have also express their opinions. Why should expressing my opinion stop a discussion on this subject? I thought it was part of the discussion.

As an aside tsmall, when you are calculating the Lots using house cusps, e.g. Part of Death, do you use 0 degrees of the 8th sign from the Ascendant or the actual degree of the Ascendant transposed to that sign?

Alice
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

Originally the term cusp (from cuspus) meant a POINT (like the cusp of a sword, or a cuspal tooth) This was anciently applied to the ascendant point and its projections from the ascending sign into each subsequent sign of the 12 part chart derived from the ascending sign and its cusp (ie, point, ie, the ascending degree) So originally (in original whole sign format, both Hellenist and Vedic) the cusp of each sign was a projection of the ascending point into each sign: later (when cusp had been transposed in meaning to "border") these were called "sensitive points" of each house (eg, vide Robert Hand) In whole sign the border of each house is 0 and 29:59 of each sign, however the central or distinguishing cusp (point) of each house, is the sensitive degree of that sign/house (so if the ascending degree of the chart were, say, 10 degree Aries, the "cusp"-old style/sensitive point-new style-of the 8th whole sign house would be 10 Scorpio)

In determining the cusps for Lots using whole sign, the cusp(old style)/sensitive point(new style) of the relevant house is used; for example, in calculating the Lot of Death the cusp(old style) sensitive point(new style) of the 8th house would be used: say the cusp(old style) sensitive point(new style) of the 8th whole sign house is 10 degrees Scorpio-therefore 10 degrees Scorpio would be used in calculating the Lot of Death.

Cusp meant point, originally; later (and now) the term has been transposed in meaning to "border"; whole sign continues the original meaning (point), relating it to the central cusp (central point) of the chart, ie, the ascending degree, and projecting that cusp (point) into each subsequent sign(house) as the central point (sensitive point or sensitive degree) of that house...
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
These threads are always lame. Why not show, don't tell. Let's see the correct system in action. I find results convincing, talk doesn't move me.


Actually I did something like this on a similar AW thread regarding whole sign vs Placidus, looking at events in the life of Queen Elizabeth; Placidus was accurate, and I think I showed that whole sign was a bit MORE accurate...unfortunately I forgot the title of that thread, perhaps JA might find it again and put in the link so viewers can take a look at it and see what they think:sideways:...
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

2. The constellations aren't 'real' - they are an arrangement of stars accepted by western cultures but this arrangement isn't used in many other cultures. For example, the Chinese have quite diffferent arrangements of the same stars
Interestingly, an identical question has been previously discussed on this forum :smile:

fwiw, IMO it is common knowledge amongst many astrologers that in ancient times when most people thought the universe was a living being, it was "The Norm" to imagine that the tiny points of light visible to the naked eye unaided by any telescope, in the night sky, as being grouped into separate, distinct sets of 'Images'.

Obviously these 'Images' were made up of separate stars although - in the opinion of the ancient people of this planet - these separate and very real stars seemed to be grouped together.

fwiw IMO then thousands of years ago, on various parts of the planet Earth, different cultures imaginatively 'connected the dots' of the tiny points of light that they thought were close to each other and personified them as 'Mythical Beings' and narrated stories about the lives of these Mythical Beings.

Furthermore, it is unsurprising IMO that the Mythical Beings and the stories of their lives varied from culture to culture and that different cultures imagined different images in the patterns of the stars of the night sky.


The ancient people of planet Earth were at that time obviously unaware that these tiny points of light were in fact hundreds - in some cases even thousands - of light years distant from each other.




THE FOLLOWING IS A 49 WORD EXTRACT SOURCED FROM WIDIPEDIA
QUOTE:

"Former constellations are constellations that are no longer recognized by the International Astronomical Union for various reasons. Many of these constellations existed for long periods of time, even centuries in many cases, which means they still have a large historical value and can be found on older star charts
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_constellations

THE FOLLOWING 100 WORD ENCAPSULATED INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND AT http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/astro/...ation.faq.html

"Oldest description of the constellations as we know them is the poem Phaenomena by Aratus 270 B.C. - clearly from the poem, the constellations mentioned originated long before Aratus' time. Detective work reveals a plausible origin. Firstly, Aratus' constellations excluded any near the south celestial pole which was always below the horizon of ancient constellation-makers. From the size of this uncharted sky area, we can determine that those responsible for the original constellations lived near a latitude of 36° north which is south of Greece and north of Egypt but similar to the latitude of the ancient Babylonians and Sumerians.
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

Originally the term cusp (from cuspus) meant a POINT (like the cusp of a sword, or a cuspal tooth) This was anciently applied to the ascendant point and its projections from the ascending sign into each subsequent sign of the 12 part chart derived from the ascending sign and its cusp (ie, point, ie, the ascending degree) So originally (in original whole sign format, both Hellenist and Vedic) the cusp of each sign was a projection of the ascending point into each sign: later (when cusp had been transposed in meaning to "border") these were called "sensitive points" of each house (eg, vide Robert Hand) In whole sign the border of each house is 0 and 29:59 of each sign, however the central or distinguishing cusp (point) of each house, is the sensitive degree of that sign/house (so if the ascending degree of the chart were, say, 10 degree Aries, the "cusp"-old style/sensitive point-new style-of the 8th whole sign house would be 10 Scorpio)

In determining the cusps for Lots using whole sign, the cusp(old style)/sensitive point(new style) of the relevant house is used; for example, in calculating the Lot of Death the cusp(old style) sensitive point(new style) of the 8th house would be used: say the cusp(old style) sensitive point(new style) of the 8th whole sign house is 10 degrees Scorpio-therefore 10 degrees Scorpio would be used in calculating the Lot of Death.

Cusp meant point, originally; later (and now) the term has been transposed in meaning to "border"; whole sign continues the original meaning (point), relating it to the central cusp (central point) of the chart, ie, the ascending degree, and projecting that cusp (point) into each subsequent sign(house) as the central point (sensitive point or sensitive degree) of that house...

Oh OK, thank you Dr Farr. So the cusps in whole sign astrology are just the degree of the Ascendant transposed to each sign, not cusps derived from the division of time and/or space that is used in the quadrant house systems.

Quadrant cusps really are borders to the houses - as can easily been seen by transits etc., as when these go over a house cusp events connected to that house manifest; in addition there is a clear difference in the effect transiting planets throughout the houses have on those houses. It can also be seen by planets placements in houses echoing family members and other loved ones' zodiac sign placements.

Alice
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

Well, here we get to an area that I am currently thinking about. I have several questions about this premise, a couple are:

1. Why do astrologers use the constellations in even, 30 degree segments when they are anything but that.

This is a question that keeps me up nights too. Best I can tell so far is that is one of the reasons we have signs of long and short ascension, and that a lot of the older timing techniques didn't rely so much on the 30* divisions. The best idea I have had on this is that it's more symmetrical, and when those Greeks were busy imposing logic on the omen based astrology of Babylonian origin, this made more sense to their idea of form and order.

2. The constellations aren't 'real' - they are an arrangement of stars accepted by western cultures but this arrangement isn't used in many other cultures. For example, the Chinese have quite different arrangements of the same stars.

I am wondering if in actual fact the constellations were named after the signs of the zodiac not the other way around. The signs of the zodiac are even, 30 degree segments derived from the Earth's movement around the Sun and starting when the Sun is at 0North00 declination on the equator,which is 0 Aries. Perhaps at a time when the western constellation of Aries was aligned to 0North00 declination this mixup occurred.

In all of my reading, I really do think that it was the constellations that came first. Why all of the constellations that touch the ecliptic were not included is still a mystery to me, and the only reason I can think of is that there was astrology (still omen based) and a calendar, and the calendar was set to the start of the year, back then in the spring, which corresponded with Aries. I have read several (I do wish I could lay hands to them now) articles about how there were initially issues surrounding the so called "Aries Point" that kept being moved due to precession, until finally it just got nailed in place and called good. I also think that the split, or divide, in the two western/Greek zodiacs (tropical and sidereal) happened when they were aligned, with some astrologers following the calendar based one, and other's staying with the star based zodiac. That they both work, though (notice how western tropical and western sidereal, as well as traditional Vedic/sidereal astrology give good results. Then, though I have not even tried to look at it, Chinese astrology works as well, and that has a whole nother system...something else must be working, don't you think?)


I wasn't aware that whole sign astrology used house cusps? what do they do, put the house cusps in the sign and call it an energy point but not the start of the house? If so, this is a new development since I studied the system.

Er, yes. The cusp of the house is the same degree in each sign as the ASC, so in this way it could be considered similar to equal houses, with the difference that sign=house. What is pretty cool about it is that yes, you get a "floating" MC/IC axis, meaning that they can be in a different house from the accustomed 10/4, and if they are in those 10/4 houses, you get two distinctly sensitive points there...or actually two distinctly sensitive points in the houses the axis occupies.

What then of the noticeable correlation of a planet in a house to the equivalent sign of the zodiac - this correlation is so exact that people can have a planet in a house at exactly the same House Equivalent Degree as a member of the family or a partner's planet in zodiac sign. I have detailed this at the bottom of this article using the Royal family as an example: http://aliceportman.com/planet-sign-house/ If you don't use a quadrant house system how can you see this?

I'm going to confess that I skimmed, and didn't read the whole article (I apologize, but it's late here) but this is something that I have also been thinking about, and if you are inclined you can find my thoughts on this thread, about the differences between natural house rulers using Aries as the 1st house, and using the Thema Mundi to give us an older "natural" house ruler schema.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52099




I suppose I have taken the lead from traditional astrologers who have loudly proclaimed that all the modern astrologers were using improper and incorrect astrology on a number of forums. Naturally I have answered them in kind.

This I totally understand. It's stinky (sorry, but I just can't think of a better word) when people have to beat each other up about what they use, that has proven to work, instead of trying to learn from each other, and from the broad history of astrology, including modern astrology. I irritate some of my more stalwart traditional friends by saying that the advances in aspect interpretation are really enlightening, and I have been guilty of a bit of Pluto bashing myself when a chart can clearly show the same thing in more detail with the 7 traditional planets...but how can we discredit what has been accomplished in the last century, and yet say that what was accomplished in say, the Medieval period has merit compared to the Hellenist tradition? The whole point is to talk, and to share, and to learn, not to "dis" everyone else.

Far from wishing to discourage further exploration, I have been a proponent of this all my astrological life, and was one of the original contributors to Project Hindsight via the astrological group to which I belonged. In my fascination with our craft I have studied a huge variety of astrology, including Vedic and Chinese astrology as well as the various forms of western astrology and have personally (re) discovered the duad chart as well as a number of other interesting factors.

What I object to is the continuous denigration of modern astrology, often from people who have little or no idea of its scope and depth. Whole sign (or zodiac sign) astrology is a specific system of astrology that many people like and is fashionable at the moment, but it doesn't encompass many of the methods of mapping that modern astrology offers and which give a very individual colour to that moment of time and place. To me it is a very simple form of astrology based on the zodiac sign rising at birth - and surely I am allowed to express my opinion on this matter, after all other people have also express their opinions. Why should expressing my opinion stop a discussion on this subject? I thought it was part of the discussion.

I have no objection to anyone who wishes open minded discussion. The key being open minded. As an original member of Project Hindsight, surely you can appreciate the before now unknown nuances of ancient astrology that are making their way back into the mainstream, and that have relevance today? Expressing an opinion is absolutely necessary in order to open even more minds. My only objection was to dismissive remarks that something is inaccurate, or not the correct house system to use to get accurate results. And, for what it's worth, I do appreciate your opinion, and the fact that, being from down under, you had to rework much of astrology for yourself. Have you ever noticed though, how often these expressing of opinions degenerate into sticking fingers in ears and then no one learns anything?

As an aside tsmall, when you are calculating the Lots using house cusps, e.g. Part of Death, do you use 0 degrees of the 8th sign from the Ascendant or the actual degree of the Ascendant transposed to that sign?

Alice

I think my good friend dr. farr just replied with an answer to this one, and thanks to he and other patient teachers I have found gave the same answer I would have. :smile: For myself, I haven't gotten far enough in my studies to use lots that rely on the cusps of houses, and though plan to try out all of the seven hermetic lots, have only really worked to date with Fortune and Spirit. What can I say? I think I'm doing ok for a year in. :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus

Oh OK, thank you Dr Farr. So the cusps in whole sign astrology are just the degree of the Ascendant transposed to each sign, not cusps derived from the division of time and/or space that is used in the quadrant house systems
'Just the degree of the ascendant transposed to each sign?'

fwiw IMO it is important to remember that the degree of the ascendant is in fact itself 'derived from the division of time and/or space' AND is COMMON to many of the more than forty house systems currently in existence - fourteen of which - including whole sign house system - are available on astro.com :smile:

Quadrant cusps really are borders to the houses - as can easily been seen by transits etc., as when these go over a house cusp events connected to that house manifest; in addition there is a clear difference in the effect transiting planets throughout the houses have on those houses. It can also be seen by planets placements in houses echoing family members and other loved ones' zodiac sign placements.Alice
Borders of whole sign houses most importantly respond to ingresses of planets into whole sign houses/signs

'cusps' aka 'sensitive points' of whole sign houses respond to transits similarly
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Actually I did something like this on a similar AW thread regarding whole sign vs Placidus, looking at events in the life of Queen Elizabeth; Placidus was accurate, and I think I showed that whole sign was a bit MORE accurate...unfortunately I forgot the title of that thread, perhaps JA might find it again and put in the link so viewers can take a look at it and see what they think:sideways:...

I remember that thread. :biggrin: It was also titled Whole Signs vs. Placidus and I'm searching for it now. I also remember your delineation, and even in my absolute newness wondering why you didn't use the lot of Kings and Rulers, because I seem to remember it was activated when she took the throne...I'll see if I can find the link.

Ah, yes. This one.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39669&highlight=placidus&page=2
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The cusp of the house is the same degree in each sign as the ASC, so in this way it could be considered similar to equal houses, with the difference that sign=house.

What is pretty cool about it is that yes, you get a "floating" MC/IC axis, meaning that they can be in a different house from the accustomed 10/4, and if they are in those 10/4 houses, you get two distinctly sensitive points there...or actually two distinctly sensitive points in the houses the axis occupies.

What can I say? I think I'm doing ok for a year in. :smile:
Although I have studied this subject a little I'm no expert either tsmall however IMO you are doing very well indeed for only a year in and IMO dr. farr (who is the expert on this subject) would agree that obviously the 'floating' MC/IC axis is itself a 'sensitive point' aka 'cusp' within each house (as understood in ancient terminology) along with the ASC/DESC... and if dr. farr disagrees he shall soon say so!
 
Top